leapyear Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 299,792,458 meters per second I'm convinced it has to be this speed to allow a quantum/classical boundary. A Femtosecond holds the key of 0.3 micrometers. An object with this width is going to be auto-observed ..have a physical state. The speed of light is the speed it is in order for quantum events to occur. If it was any faster a Femtosecond could cover 0.2 micrometers and prevent quantum weirdness from being a thing. The speed of light is directly tied to the spaceTime and it seems to be a frame rate. I suspect the default speed of light is actually 200,000,000 m/s and a multiplier of 1.49896229 is added to the frame rate to equal 299,792,458 m/s Again, the multiplier is to ensure the quantum/classical boundary size. If we take the speed of light and multiply it by 5 we get: 299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1.49896229×10^15 Micrometers per second (1,498,962,290,000,000) I think it is telling us 1,498,962,290 m/s is the speed of light when spacetime isn't involved. The speed of light gets divided by 5. Is it saying time gets split between 5 different dimensions? 299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1,498,962,290 m/s or 1,498,962,290,000,000 Micrometers per second 1,498,962,290,000,000 / 5 = 2.9979246e+14 || 299,792,460,000,000 I think this is saying the auto-observe key is actually 0.29979246 Micrometers speed of light 299,792,458 / auto-observe 0.29979246 micrometers to meters 0.00000029979246 = 999,999,990,000,000 Light has a max of auto-observing 999,999,990,000,000 clumps of matter each second. 1000000000000000 - 999999990000000 = 10,000,000 I think that is somewhere around 1.00000001% of a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations 44 minutes ago, leapyear said: I suspect the default speed of light is actually 200,000,000 m/s Why on earth would a natural constant be an exact number of arbitrary human units? Why isn’t it “actually” 1.0 megafurlongs per microfortnight? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 1 hour ago, leapyear said: I'm convinced it has to be this speed to allow a quantum/classical boundary. I can't speak for everyone but if you're convinced that is good enough for me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 4 hours ago, leapyear said: 299,792,458 meters per second I'm convinced it has to be this speed to allow a quantum/classical boundary. A Femtosecond holds the key of 0.3 micrometers. An object with this width is going to be auto-observed ..have a physical state. The speed of light is the speed it is in order for quantum events to occur. If it was any faster a Femtosecond could cover 0.2 micrometers and prevent quantum weirdness from being a thing. The speed of light is directly tied to the spaceTime and it seems to be a frame rate. I suspect the default speed of light is actually 200,000,000 m/s and a multiplier of 1.49896229 is added to the frame rate to equal 299,792,458 m/s Again, the multiplier is to ensure the quantum/classical boundary size. If we take the speed of light and multiply it by 5 we get: 299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1.49896229×10^15 Micrometers per second (1,498,962,290,000,000) I think it is telling us 1,498,962,290 m/s is the speed of light when spacetime isn't involved. The speed of light gets divided by 5. Is it saying time gets split between 5 different dimensions? 299,792,458 m/s x 5 = 1,498,962,290 m/s or 1,498,962,290,000,000 Micrometers per second 1,498,962,290,000,000 / 5 = 2.9979246e+14 || 299,792,460,000,000 I think this is saying the auto-observe key is actually 0.29979246 Micrometers speed of light 299,792,458 / auto-observe 0.29979246 micrometers to meters 0.00000029979246 = 999,999,990,000,000 Light has a max of auto-observing 999,999,990,000,000 clumps of matter each second. 1000000000000000 - 999999990000000 = 10,000,000 I think that is somewhere around 1.00000001% of a difference. and yet precision tests of the speed of light disagree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 This is a science forum. NOT a numerology forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leapyear Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 How do any tests disagree with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 22 minutes ago, leapyear said: How do any tests disagree with me? If you don't know then perhaps you should not be making your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leapyear Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 yes, I must be an idiot, everyone ignore this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Hanke Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 9 hours ago, leapyear said: I'm convinced it has to be this speed to allow a quantum/classical boundary. The numerical value of c is what is because it is directly related to the permittivity and permeability of the underlying medium, i.e. vacuum : \[c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon _{0} \mu _{0}}}\] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said: The numerical value of c is what is... ...because humans (at the moment) are using meters, seconds and kilograms etc. , i.e. International System Of Units (SI)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units In normalized units c would be 1 [L/T]. In English imperial units system it would be completely different value. Conversion between different units systems require multiplication and/or division by the right coefficients. 6 hours ago, leapyear said: How do any tests disagree with me? Building constructors use laser to measure distance. i.e. t=2d/c. Time of flight of laser beam to mirror and back after reflection is equal to double distance between laser and mirror, divided by speed of light (approximately, due to Index Of Refraction of air). Edited December 21, 2019 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leapyear Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 Meters are based on 10's. It scales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 30 minutes ago, leapyear said: Meters are based on 10's. It scales. The meter is not "based on 10s". The SI prefixes are, but you can talk about kilomiles, millifortnights and megapounds if you want to. Our standard measures are arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 4 hours ago, leapyear said: Meters are based on 10's. It scales. And even if that were true, how is it relevant. Why would natural constants have to be round numbers in base 10. Why not base 9 or base 42? Numerology is not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 5 hours ago, leapyear said: Meters are based on 10's. It scales. While the meter was originally based on being 1/10,000,000 the distance from the Equator to the North pole. It's actual length is arbitrary because: 1. There is no natural "law" that determines the size of the Earth 2. We happen to use base 10 numbers simply by choice. There is no reason to use it over any other base. (in fact, from a purely convenience sake, base 12 would have been better as 12 divides evenly by more numbers than 10.) While 1/10,000,000 of the North pole-Equator distance gave a convenient length in base 10, 1/1000,000 that same distance in based twelve gives a distance ~ 0.27 that, or a bit under a foot. This would have been perfectly acceptable as a base length unit. We simply chose to divide and multiply meters by the factor of 10 for smaller and larger measures because that was the number base we use (If we had adopted a base 12 number system, we would scale by a factor of 12) Event the length of the second has no natural law basis behind it, it was originally 1/86,400 the length of the mean solar day. That length was chosen because we chose to divide the day in to 24 hrs made up of 60 minutes, in turn made up from 60 seconds. We could have gone base ten here too, Having 10 hrs of 100 minutes made of 100 sec. Then a sec would have been 100,000 of a mean solar day. Even the length of a Solar day is a matter of chance. So to assume that the speed of light should be some even number value in a arbitrary number base as measured in units based on random factors is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leapyear Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) "The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light" I don't care about 60 seconds ..I only care about 1 Edited December 21, 2019 by leapyear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, leapyear said: "The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light" I don't care about 60 seconds ..I only care about 1 How is this relevant to your point? Come to that, what is your point? That the speed of light is different from what we think, but when we measure it we get a different number? That doesn't make much sense. (BTW. When you quote something, it is considered good form to provide the source.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 20 hours ago, leapyear said: Light has a max of auto-observing 999,999,990,000,000 clumps of matter each second. What is "auto-observing"? What is "clumps of matter"? What is "999,999,990,000,000 clumps of matter each second", is that within some defined volume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) As far as testing the speed of light there has been literally 100's of different tests. Some of the more commonly used methods involve lasers. We have also used stellar objects such as Jupiter's moons thought the latter only gave us a close estimate. The Michelson and Morley tests tested both the speed and the isotropy of light speed. The results is what gave us the current speed. Simply changing those measured speeds to match some "seems weird feeling" isn't useful. The speed must match observed measurements not some numerology or gut feeling of wanting a different number. Particularly since physics can readily avoid difficult to work with numbers by using natural or normalized units. Edited December 21, 2019 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 47 minutes ago, leapyear said: "The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light" I don't care about 60 seconds ..I only care about 1 And if we had a different definition for the second, the value would be different. The value of c is arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 2 hours ago, leapyear said: "The official definition of a meter today is: 1⁄299792458 of the distance traveled by light in a vacuum, in 1 second. ... A consequence of using this definition is that any attempt to measure the speed of light is cyclical; you must use a “meter” to measure it at some point, which relies on the speed of light" I don't care about 60 seconds ..I only care about 1 That definition was decided on after it was determined that light had an invariant speed and thus could be used as a constant. The 1/299792458 fraction was chosen to make it closely match the length of the original definition based on the distance between pole and equator. If a different method had been used to define the meter, then a different fraction would have the result. But the length of a second was determined by how we decided to divide up the solar day, which includes how many seconds are in a minute. If we had decided to use the ten hour method I mentioned earlier then the second would shorter, and we could have defined the meter as being 1/259020692 of the distance light traveled in 1 sec. There is nothing uniquely special about either the second or meter as units of measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, leapyear said: Meters are based on 10's. It scales. Numbers can be showed to human in decimal numeral system, as well as binary, hexadecimal or any else. It has nothing to do with SI units. Yes. It is easier to convert and calculate in modern numeral systems than e.g. imperial inches, feets and miles.. Edited December 21, 2019 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, Janus said: That definition was decided on after it was determined that light had an invariant speed and thus could be used as a constant. The 1/299792458 fraction was chosen to make it closely match the length of the original definition based on the distance between pole and equator. If a different method had been used to define the meter, then a different fraction would have the result. But the length of a second was determined by how we decided to divide up the solar day, which includes how many seconds are in a minute. If we had decided to use the ten hour method I mentioned earlier then the second would shorter, and we could have defined the meter as being 1/259020692 of the distance light traveled in 1 sec. There is nothing uniquely special about either the second or meter as units of measure. Or if we had lived in the past by a considerable amount, since the earth rotation rate isn’t constant. Go back a bit and the day is 5% shorter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, swansont said: Or if we had lived in the past by a considerable amount, since the earth rotation rate isn’t constant. Go back a bit and the day is 5% shorter. Right. In fact, the reason we need to add leap seconds from time to time is that the second was defined based on the mean solar day at the time it was first defined and since then the Earth's rotation has changed, changing the length of the solar day. Thus, once in a while, we need to make an adjustment to keep civil time from drifting too far from solar time. (while it is a small difference in solar day length, the effect is accumulative.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leapyear Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 You can rest assured a femtosecond of light is a unit of spacetime. The quantum/classical boundary demands it. MicroMETERS lets us do the math. I think this explains why quantum gravity doesn't exist for quantum waves. The time split in 5 might be telling use there are 4 parallel universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) How about answering the questions first, instead of adding new stuff? 19 minutes ago, leapyear said: The time split in 5 might be telling use there are 4 parallel universes. (bold by me) 19 minutes ago, leapyear said: You can rest assured No I can't. I want more rigor in a scientific discussion. Edited December 21, 2019 by Ghideon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts